
POLITICS
Judge orders Donald Trump to sit for deposition in BBC lawsuit
A U.S. magistrate judge in Miami ordered President Donald Trump to sit for a videotaped deposition by Dec. 11 and to meet other evidence-sharing deadlines in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC over an edited Panorama segment about his Jan. 6 speech.
A U.S. magistrate judge in Miami ordered President Donald Trump to sit for a videotaped deposition by Dec. 11 and to meet other evidence-sharing deadlines in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC over an edited Panorama segment about his Jan. 6 speech.
Corroboration
LowMedHigh
Confirmed by 47+ sources.
What This is
- A federal magistrate judge ordered Donald Trump to sit for a deposition by Dec. 11 in his $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC.
- The judge rejected Trump’s request to block videotaping, allowing a video-recorded deposition for the lawyers in the case.
- The judge warned that if Trump does not sit for the deposition and meet discovery duties, sanctions could follow, including possible dismissal of the case.
- Trump’s claims focus on a Panorama segment that edited parts of his Jan. 6, 2021 speech, which he says falsely made it look like he urged violence.
- The BBC has acknowledged an editing error and apologized, but it says the program did not meet the legal standard for defamation and has sought to dismiss the case.
- BBC lawyers said Trump canceled an earlier agreed deposition date in October and later proposed pushing his sworn testimony into January, risking the Dec. 18 discovery deadline.
- The dispute has also turned into a fight over evidence-gathering, with the judge questioning Trump’s document searches and criticizing delays in producing requested materials.
- The judge allowed the BBC to seek Mar-a-Lago membership records as possible evidence in the case.
Why This Matters
- The case shows courts can require even a sitting president to give sworn testimony in a civil lawsuit he filed.
- It highlights how judges can enforce evidence-sharing deadlines by threatening penalties, including throwing out a case.
- The dispute underscores how hard it is for public figures to turn a misleading edit into a winning defamation claim.
- Fights over videotaping and private records show how discovery battles can shape what evidence a jury may later see.





